Scarborough zoning board denies detached ADU variance after neighbors raise wetland and flooding concerns

The Scarborough Zoning Board of Appeals voted 0–5 on April 8 to deny a practical-difficulty variance that would have allowed a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) at 23 Schooner Road.

The board heard a presentation from Connor Ladd of Dirigo Architectural Engineering, who said the proposed ADU would provide 882 square feet of living space with a roughly 529-square-foot footprint and would be served by existing public water and sewer. "We're here asking for a practical difficulty variance so they can build a detached accessory dwelling unit," Ladd said, describing requested setback relief that would reduce the front setback from 50 feet to 29 feet and the rear from 15 feet to 10 feet.

Neighbors and abutters mounted the strongest opposition, focusing on flooding and wetland concerns. "The area proposed is where storm collects and it appears to be a flowing wetland into a vernal pool," said neighbor Mike Burla, who added that during heavy storms standing water currently fills the swale and can overflow onto driveways and yards.

Owner and appellant Dean A. Wolf told the board the family has owned the parcel since the early 1990s and said he and his team surveyed the lot before applying. "If we were to proceed we would do the right thing," he said, committing to address drainage and ensure appropriate construction practices.

Planning staff explained that ADU performance standards are evaluated at the building-permit stage but that the board must evaluate the practical-difficulty variance criteria. Staff also recommended, if approval were considered, that a wetland delineation and vernal pool assessment be required as part of permitting.

In deliberations the board went through the practical-difficulty criteria point by point. Members agreed the lot’s triangular shape is unique but expressed concern that the proposed ADU’s front-yard placement and visibility would be an undesirable change in neighborhood character. Several members also said feasible alternatives — such as an attached ADU or different orientation — had not been exhausted to their satisfaction. The board cited insufficient environmental evidence about wetlands and potential impacts on stormwater as additional reasons to deny the variance.

After the 0–5 roll-call vote to reject the appeal the board advised the applicants to consult with neighbors and staff and noted that town code clarifications are under consideration as the municipality adapts ADU rules.

Next steps: Because the decision was a denial of the variance, the applicants may revise the design or pursue alternate permitting paths. Staff indicated wetland delineation and shoreland/floodplain checks would be handled through the building-permit review if the project is re-filed.